-
rjdohnert
You will never know success until you know failure
-
Tyler Brown
Bullets change governments far surer than votes.
Everythings got both strengths and weaknesses? Thats funny, because although this is the way things are when comparing operating systems, so few people realize this paradigm.Beer28 wrote:It's the rock, paper, sissors model.
-
mrservices
POS Reseller
Beer28 wrote:UNIX is hard, linux is easy, windows is easy, linux is free
This is the progression in the way I see it.
Hello Beer28, did you ever follow my suggestion and try OpenBSD to find out first hand how easy and intuitive Unix-like operatings systems are?
Logically laid out, secure default installation, small foot print, many available arches, low hardware requirements.
Many uses, desktop, laptops, firewall, mail, DNS, DHCP and Web Servers.
SSH for secure remote comms.
Did I mention truly "free".
Download www.openbsd.org
Best regards,
rogern
John 3:16
P.S. This is being posted from a Panasonice CF-71 running OpenBSD 3.7, wi0, and approx. 5 hour battery life, apm works excellent.
,
-
IRenderable
Pi
Beer28 wrote:Roger, seriously, the day I can simply type "yum update" and have it shoot all new binaries of the programs I use all over my system automatically, is the day I try BSD.
The day that you can double click on an exabcutable to install something without going to the terminal is the day Joe Sixpack will use Linux (Sure you can use RPMs but those arn't capatible across mulitiple distroes). He will also have to have it come bundled with his computer because he is too stupid to install an OS. So no, Linux will not beat Windows (in terms of amount of people using it, IMO it beats it in the areas I want (Except games)).
-
mrservices
POS Reseller
Hello Beer28, understood.
But you should try OpenBSD at some point in your life. I've tried several Linux distro's, RH, Suse, Debian, etc.
Found OpenBSD, tried it, learning it, using it, benefitting from it.
Best regards,
Roger
John 3:16 -
rjdohnert wrote:
Why are you always posting those Vaughan's articles here? I'm sure he knows that he is irritating and obviously succeeds in that. You seems to be always falling that trap.
If you want read news you like, go some Solaris, BSD, Windows related sites or read guys articles who prefer those OS's.
It's hard to find unbiased news in Internet.
All OS's has their advantages. I think that any OS isn't going to die.
-
Linux is 10 years behind Windows. why is so popular? Easey, it's FREE, it's open for YOU to play with and when you get to know how to change things a bit, now you believe you're a hardcore developer and that the OS is awesome. Will you see it as the next default desktop OS as Windows is? Not a chance while MS continues to do what is doing. Linux will continue to mimic Windows. Expect to see it looking like Vista someday with all the stuff like Vector-based UI and such. Is that considered innovation? Ummm i'm confused
-
Did I forget to mention that the space Linux has on the server side isn't stay there for long? If one thing MS is good at is knowing its opponents.
-
Your post is just a troll but ... oh well.
Carlos Luna wrote:Linux will continue to mimic Windows. Expect to see it looking like Vista someday with all the stuff like Vector-based UI and such. Is that considered innovation? Ummm i'm confused
Linux is not a GUI. Blame KDE/GNOME/etc. if you necessarily want to blame someone. Those project are multiplatform which means that those works in many other OS than Linux. That's really nice thing.
Everyone copies from everyone. It's really hard to say who invented and what.
Bleh... this is waste of time.
-
"By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols"
Stopped reading there. -
Linux has taken all of UNIX's good qualities but has also adopted all of its bad ones too.
Windows as a platform for applications allows you to compile once run everywhere; however Linux and UNIX are both compile everywhere platforms.
As an example; earlier today I needed a program to run on a custom Linux system; the software came with a make, and a configure file. I ran the configure, it worked fine... I ran the make and it failed.. On my screen I could see well over one hundred lines of gcc output and within the makefile it had at least just as many..
Now I am not going to try and claim that every application can run on every version of Windows but between 90% to 95% of applications written for Windows 95 will run without the need for the source code on Windows 2003.
The Open Source software movement would have you believe that it isn't important to support simplicity in software installation and backwards compatibility because "You have the source and the control" but at the same time they also make claims about how good of a platform Linux is for closed source software vendors.
In my opinion, until Linux is standardised and make simple enough for "real people" to use and debug it will not gain any market share. It has absorbed about as much "1337 system admins" and Universities as it is going to.
-
dahat
inanity makes my head hurt
Carlos Luna wrote:Linux is 10 years behind Windows.In what way(s) Carlos?
While I hate Linux and many things associated with it (hence the name and early content of my blog), using such pointless attacks/arguments does little if anything to support your point as they lower the argument to nothing more than school yard "you are doo-doo head" style insults.
If you want to argue about this OS vs that OS... please do so with more relevant and factual arguments and specific examples.
-
dahat wrote:
Carlos Luna wrote: Linux is 10 years behind Windows. In what way(s) Carlos?
While I hate Linux and many things associated with it (hence the name and early content of my blog), using such pointless attacks/arguments does little if anything to support your point as they lower the argument to nothing more than school yard "you are doo-doo head" style insults.
If you want to argue about this OS vs that OS... please do so with more relevant and factual arguments and specific examples.
Let's read what others are saying about Linux as a Desktop OS. -
Sven Groot
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favourite store on the Citadel.
That article is rather old. Things have changed since RedHat 9. It's not there yet, but it's gotten substantially better than the state that article is based on.
-
Carlos Luna wrote:Let's read what others are saying about Linux as a Desktop OS.
Wow, old stuff. RH9, XFree, etc. A lot have changed.
Oh well. Maybe people just should different OSs and make their own decisions.
-
dahat
inanity makes my head hurt
I agree with Sven, that article is quite old, from around May of 2003 or so.
A year more recent would be a blog entry of mine on my issues with getting a more modern app and libraries to work on a few year old distro (RH 6.2).
Both unfortunately do go after weaknesses of Linux in the past, like it or not, things do continue to improve over there... you just have to be willing to recompile your kernel every few weeks or install the latest version of your distro every month or two to take advantage of it.
Go back and watch the recent C9 video on IIS security that included the trainer and consultant Roger Grimes and note when he says:
“I teach a lot of conferences and some of the worlds best people, have these old preconceived notions that haven’t been true for 5 or 10 years or so, I’ve got this saying: ‘If you don’t act like my OS is 10 years old, I wont blame you about your 10 year old OS.’”
It’s a very key point. Technology moves so quickly that making arguments based on old information tells you nothing but where your competition was back then... not where they are or what they are doing today.
-
sbc
GW R/Me
pp
Manip wrote:Linux has taken all of UNIX's good qualities but has also adopted all of its bad ones too.
Windows as a platform for applications allows you to compile once run everywhere; however Linux and UNIX are both compile everywhere platforms.
As an example; earlier today I needed a program to run on a custom Linux system; the software came with a make, and a configure file. I ran the configure, it worked fine... I ran the make and it failed.. On my screen I could see well over one hundred lines of gcc output and within the makefile it had at least just as many..
Now I am not going to try and claim that every application can run on every version of Windows but between 90% to 95% of applications written for Windows 95 will run without the need for the source code on Windows 2003.
The Open Source software movement would have you believe that it isn't important to support simplicity in software installation and backwards compatibility because "You have the source and the control" but at the same time they also make claims about how good of a platform Linux is for closed source software vendors.
In my opinion, until Linux is standardised and make simple enough for "real people" to use and debug it will not gain any market share. It has absorbed about as much "1337 system admins" and Universities as it is going to.
That is what Linux Standard Base is for. An application compiled against this will work on any compliant distribution. What I cannot find is a list of compliant systems. I'm sure soon in the future the distributions provided by SuSE, RedHat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Debian etc (i.e. the major ones) would be LSB 3.0 compliant.
You could probably get your application certified LSB compliant, but hopefully that would be free to do so - i.e. a panel could test you application on a barebones LSB system. If not free to do that, then I suppose you would have to say what it has been tested with.
You would also need an agreed upon installer technology that is user friendly as well. I think RPM is the format in LSB.
Not all old Windows applications run on modern versions (and even less DOS programs work on Windows). Not as bad as Linux though.
-
Sven Groot wrote:That article is rather old. Things have changed since RedHat 9. It's not there yet, but it's gotten substantially better than the state that article is based on.
I know it has changed a lot, but no nearly to be accepted as a regular user's Desktop OS. Windows is not even close to be a perfect OS, i don't think any OS is today. Linux, however has a lot to do to be compared to Windows.
A simple question a user may ask is "Why would I need another OS (even if it's FREE), when Windows continues to do what I want and plus?" If you don't believe me, ask my mom
Microsoft still doesn't have the server acceptance just yet, but I believe is because of $$ while you can get Linux for free. That right there, is a given! You compare server products against each other and I'd bet there is little defference in security and stability, but the word FREE makes the difference. Now, technology is changing and things are getting more complex, specially in the digital media and sofisticated databases. Let's not forget how well organized MS is and how much they love to compete.
Personally, I love having Linux around. If Linux and other OS'es weren't there, we wouldn't have seen the kind of innovations out there today.
Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.